Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Cancer Fighting Drug Found in Dirt 184

Posted by samzenpus from the a-shovel-a-day-keeps-the-doctor-away dept.
firesquirt writes "From an article in LiveScience, the bark of certain yew trees can yield a medicine that fights cancer. Now scientists find the dirt that yew trees grow in can supply the drug as well, suggesting a new way to commercially harvest the medicine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cancer Fighting Drug Found in Dirt More

Cancer Fighting Drug Found in Dirt

Comments Filter:

  • Next headline... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wbren ( 682133 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:23AM (#18881989) Homepage
    "Pharmaceutical company patents dirt; Critics claim prior art"

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by delire ( 809063 )
      Your joke points to a sad reality however, that it's only through patenting cures (ie having a monopoly over a cure) can pharmaceutical companies (free enterprises) get the investment capital to develop medicines. Cures are IP, traded and guarded.

      Moreso, the last thing any pharmaceutical monopoly can afford is for people to get better very easily. For this reason cures are highly guarded discoveries: there are many cures around we don't have access to, and perhaps never will, either because they threaten

      • Your joke points to a sad reality however, that it's only through patenting cures (ie having a monopoly over a cure) can pharmaceutical companies (free enterprises) get the investment capital to develop medicines. Cures are IP, traded and guarded.

        I dunno, they do a fairly good job of charging a fortune for diagnostic equipment, consumables, etc. For example, diabetics' glucometers take tiny little sticks which seem to be mainly plastic and cotton wool, and are used and disposed of at a rate of four or five

      • Re:Next headline... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:03AM (#18882797)

        For this reason cures are highly guarded discoveries: there are many cures around we don't have access to, and perhaps never will, either because they threaten an existing sickness market or because the IP pushes the price up beyond our reach. Just because we hear about a cure doesn't mean we'll ever see that cure in the wild
        Surely there are researchers involved in finding these hidden cures you refer to. Why don't any of them blow the whistle on this massive conspiracy?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by delire ( 809063 )

          Why don't any of them blow the whistle on this massive conspiracy?
          Because it's not a consipiracy. It's good common sense capitalism.
          • Surely even multi-billionaires have loved ones who get sick from these diseases? Why don't they pay to have the drugs developed so the cures can be available, even if only to those who are rich enough to afford it? Generally it takes less than a billion dollars to have the drug fully approved by the FDA. It takes much less to fund a small clinical trial to investigate whether a drug is effective. There are plenty of billionaires around with enough money to throw around to develop these cures, if only they e

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hesiod ( 111176 )
              You answered your own question. Because the ones who can afford to purchase/open it are the ones who can afford to pay for the cure. Why pay a billion dollars for a cure when you can pay a few thousand for it? They are greedy and aren't going to spend their money to help others. How do you think they became rich to begin with?
              • They are too greedy to help their wives, husbands, children, or parents who are dying from a disease that someone has developed a cure for? Surely there are at least some billionaires who themselves have the diseases that these supposed cures exist for? Why don't they pay for the research on themselves so they can save their own lives? Then scientists could publish the results of the trial. Are the scientists all paid hush money, and the ones who talk are blackmailed, discredited, or "wiped out"? I think yo
          • Because it's not a consipiracy. It's good common sense capitalism.

            So, what you're saying is that all of the researchers who worked so long, and hard when they developed the cure for muscular distrophy back in the 1980s are being paid hush money, and that's why they have those telethons?

            I'll admit that at a glance it looks like you could make more money treating the symptoms than curing the disease. The problem is that once a cure is developed, you have to suppress the researchers, many of whom are mot

          • Re:Next headline... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LurkerXXX ( 667952 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:06AM (#18884935)
            Take off the tinfoil hat. I'm a medical researcher. If I discover a cure for a disease, I get famous in my field, guaranteed funding, and get invited to speak at research Universities around the world. Maybe even win a Nobel prize. It's all pluses. What do I get to keep it secret if I'm a researcher? Nada.

            Uninformed conspiracy nuts seem to think Pharm companies do all the medical research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) will spend more than 28+ Billion on medical research this year (your tax dollars at work). I do research funded by them. My work is all published in journals you are free to subscribe to, or browse for free at your local research university's library.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by delire ( 809063 )
              The NIH has done alot of research and publishes much of it in the interest of common good. The NIH (and related organisations in other countries) are not at all the problem however.

              Bear in mind also that a cure can be published in detail while also remaining patented: don't get patentability mixed up with copyright.

              As a medical researcher, you mind find it interesting - perhaps disturbing - to read the following:

              Stagnation in the Drug Development Process: Are Patents the Problem? [cepr.net]
              TRIPS and pharmace [wto.org]

              • Re:Next headline... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by LurkerXXX ( 667952 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:57AM (#18886979)
                I assure you, being in the field and being involved in the patent process, I am much better versed on the topic than you. Thanks for the offer to look around, but I've already done it. A lot. I do it for a living.

                There is no grand conspiracy as you would have others believe to keep cures hidden. As I said, NIH does most of the basic research for exploring biology and finding new drugs. Pharm companies do some drug exploration, but the bulk of their research dollars are spent on clinical trials which are *extremely* expensive. Many times there are candidate drugs which don't go on to clinical trials. These are not 'hidden'. Anyone is free to look at the literature to see them. And many researchers I know who have published new exciting results, try to get a story in the more general public news. This gets their name out there, and the Institute/University they work at gets some press that they love. Once again, not hidden. No conspiracy.

                Patents are an entirely different issue. Patents are public record. Once again, they aren't hidden from you. Drugs generally have a use patent, so it's easy to see exactly what disease they are for the treatment of. Nothing hidden. Also patents don't last forever. Anyone with a patented drug that works will try to sell it like made for several years, because the patent is going to expire, and then anyone will be able to make a generic version of it, with no patent worries.

                If the company patented a drug and sits on it because they don't think they will recoup as much as it would cost to do the trials/manufacturing, well, the patent is still going to expire, so others will be able to use it then. Nothing hidden again. No conspiracy.

                Now, if the original company didn't want to go through the expense of doing clinical trials for it because they didn't think they would recoup their money, no one else is likely to want to foot the bill entirely either, since when they get it passed, all their competitors are then free to manufacture generic versions as well.

                It all boils down to clinical trials, and who pays for the huge expense of them. No one wants to foot the bill for unpatentable or patent-expired drugs because it's 100+ million down hole for the company doing the trials, and a free ride for all their competitors. It's just terrible business sense. No 'conspiracy' involved at all.

                Put away the tinfoil hats. It comes down to simple business decisions a 12-year old should be able to grasp. Blaming pharm companies and academic researchers for 'conspiring' to keep them off the shelf is simply stupid.

                If you want a better system for orphan drugs, then lobby your congressmen to expand NIH funding to include drug trials for orphan drugs. Public dollars would be well worth spending in that area.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by delire ( 809063 )
                  No one's talking about a conspiracy. You can safely put that word down and walk away from it.

                  The issue is also not about government efforts to fund research for cures using tax payer's money. Of course this happens and of course it is good. The issue at hand surrounds the role patents play in the strategic interests of pharmaceutical corporations, many of which are multi-nationals, to the ends that patents are actively used to restrict the fabrication and consequent distribution of cures known to save li
            • One of the things I'll miss most about being at University is journal access. Journals should be offered for much less. Subscriptions are exorbitant and individual articles run $20 to $80. With publishing going electronic you'd think that electronic versions could be offered for much less. Maybe $10/year per subscriber. Really I already paid for lots of the research so why aren't the articles public domain?
              • Agreed. Much like the recording/movie industries as well as newspapers, etc, scientific journals for the most part haven't adapted to new technology. I think the exception is in physics. Those folks have moved to to a mainly online system much faster than the rest of the scientific community. I expect eventually the rest of us will catch up, but it may take a while.

            • Uninformed conspiracy nuts seem to think Pharm companies do all the medical research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) will spend more than 28+ Billion on medical research this year (your tax dollars at work).

              This drug, Taxol, is a good example of government spending on medical research. Taxol was developed and tested by the NCI, it cost $183,000,000. But then the NCI rurned around and pratically gave away the rights to all the test data to Bristol-Myers Squibb for a measly $43,000,000.

              Falcon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by timster ( 32400 )
        Ah, once again, it's the favorite conspiracy theory of the modern age. Cures everywhere, locked up by IP. Somebody finds anti-cancer dirt, but nobody sees enough profit to bring it to market, so people still get sick.

        If only it were so simple. So you've discovered some dirt that fights cancer -- so what? We have as many compounds that fight cancer as we have compounds that cause cancer. If you want to really cure people, we're talking scientific medicine, not feel-good natural herbal supplements. That
      • Have you been reading books by that scam artist Kevin Trudeau? You have the message down, man. If only I could find a physician who is not part of the big FDA+Pharma Co. conspiracy! Right now, if I want to cure cancer, the only source to find out how is Kevin's books!

      • Your joke points to a sad reality however, that it's only through patenting cures (ie having a monopoly over a cure) can pharmaceutical companies (free enterprises) get the investment capital to develop medicines. Cures are IP, traded and guarded.

        In this case, Taxol, the company that markets and distributes the drug didn't spend a dime on developing the drug. The National Cancer Institute, NCI, spent $183,000,000 to develop and test Taxol. Then the NCI turned around and "sold", what a joke, the rights

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by WallaceAndGromit ( 910755 )
      ... 8 year old sued for telling friend to eat dirt.
    • Thomas Covenant the White Gold Wielder declared prophetic of this discovery; loan of the Land declared sacred.
      • ...loan of the Land declared sacred.

        Wouldn't that me loam?

        BTW, that was a great series of books.

  • In the greater scheme of things... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mudshark ( 19714 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:28AM (#18882015)
    ... it's not all about yew, after all. It's the dirt from whence yew came, and where yew shall ultimately return....

  • Time and time again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:31AM (#18882033)
    ...we discover these things that the Earth provides us, and yet we learn nothing of protecting it from ourselves.

    Silly monkeys.

    • In fact we ostracise those that insist that there are natural alternatives to fight serious diseases which are conventionally either uncurable or unlikely to be cured even with costly conventional treatments involved.

      \sigh

      • Re:Time and time again... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Skrynesaver ( 994435 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:14AM (#18882487) Homepage
        This is not an alternative to anything, this is a chemical which can be found in yew bark. Do you consider Asprin an alternative remedy? it can be harvested from willow bark after all. As yew is a highly toxic plant I don't recommend chewing on it in the hope of a cure, similarly the concentration of salicylic acid in willow bark is variable and chewing on willow bark will give you ulcers as a result.

        Bayer managed to patent not Asprin itself but the process of synthesising it. As I don't believe you can patent discoveries even in the US.

        • imilarly the concentration of salicylic acid in willow bark is variable and chewing on willow bark will give you ulcers as a result.


          Hence the reason you concentrate the salicylic acid from the willow bark by making a tea out of it.

          • Hence the reason you concentrate the salicylic acid from the willow bark by making a tea out of it.

            Sorry to burst your bubble but water doesn't magically increase/decrease the concentration of active ingredients in the bark.

            An infusion made from an unknown quantity of active ingredient is still an unknown quantity, unless you have an extraction/purification method that returns a known concentration of the active ingredient you still don't know how much is there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Goaway ( 82658 )
        They are ostracised because they are nutcases and/or quacks who produce no results, but profit from selling people false hope and placebo effect.

        You seem to imply that it is somehow hypocritical to use one natural remedy but not another, but the difference is that this one works while the other ones don't.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
          Produce no results? How many "cured" cancer patients do you know? I've yet to ever hear any doctor say a patient is "cured". They always say the cancer could reappear. That doesn't sound much like a cure to me.

          I also think you're mistaking the meaning of "results". Results have varying degrees, and while some "modern" medicine does have more effective, long-term results, you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results. Most of those people also note a better standard of livi

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Goaway ( 82658 )
            That doesn't sound much like a cure to me.

            Who's talking about a cure? Other than quacks trying to sell people false hope?

            you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results.

            You are familiar with the placebo effect, I would hope.

            You also seem to be discounting placebo effect. Placebo effect can be very powerful, and I'm sure you can find some cases where a person was "cured" with a placebo.

            I guess you are. And you know why I discount it? Because it relies on lying to the patient and ha

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Fuck Earth. Take your tree-loving sacrificial rain-dance bullshit back to whatever liberal leaf-licking college you barely crawled tripping off LSD out of with your "degree". We really don't need this tripe. Do you honestly think us "silly monkeys" would have even made a discovery such as this without technology built by a society powered by the very resources you likely eschew? Sure, we've found yet another cancer fighting drug (which is a pretty insubstantial claim, go hit up Google for "cancer fighting d

      • There are many routes to finding this knowledge other than your scientific ones. Natives in North and South America, as well as Africa, have medicine men who work on some completely different level than you or I. They have knowledge of plants and combinations of plants for many therapeutic purposes that we would take hundreds of years to figure out; they've just always known about them. If you asked one of them, they'd tell you that the plants spoke to them and told them about themselves.

        We want to think w

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Lobo ( 994537 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:44AM (#18882083)
    I HATE when people and even pseudoscientific articles talk about a medicine against "cancer". Hell, there is NO cancer. There are CANCERS. Lung cancer has a completly different nature than, say, bllod cancer, ot colon cancer, or skin cancer. Yes, all of them are chaotic grow of the cells, but their nature, symptoms, erradication and even cell behaviour is completly different. It's therefore naive to talk about a "cure for cancer". It's like saying: a drug against virus has been found. Hell! WHAT virus? They are all different!

    • Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Interesting)

      by VirusEqualsVeryYes ( 981719 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:59AM (#18882127)
      But do most people know about these differences? Hell, I'll admit that even I have no idea what you're talking about. All I know is that mutations in cells's DNA can cause them to replicate uncontrollably, hence cancer. There are differences in lung/blod/colon/skin cancer? Sounds plausible! ... but I have no idea what they are. To me, and to most normal people, "cancer" encompasses all cancers.

      I guess it's like saying a certain finding advances "science". But wait, you say, there are a lot of sciences! Yes, there are, and the finding most likely only really advances one of the sciences ... and yet, we all understand what is meant when we say something advances "science".
      • That's exactly why these news articles shouldn't just say "cure for cancer" - because nobody will know that that encompasses a whole range of completely different diseases. Some caused by bacteria, some by viruses, some by mutations, some by inhaling smoke, etc etc etc. The masses will never understand that if nobody tells them.

        • Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

          by krotkruton ( 967718 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:32AM (#18882603)
          I don't think people are really that ignorant about the disease. Ask someone for one of the causes of skin cancer and you'll probably get "too much sun without sunscreen", or ask for one for lung cancer and you'll get "cigarette smoke". I think most people understand that there are many different types of cancer that can all be caused by different things, but I don't know if they understand that a cure for one might not be a cure for all, if that was even the initial point of this thread. On the other hand, someone may very well find a single cure for all forms of cancer, in which case, is it really wrong to call it a cure for cancer?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pointbeing ( 701902 )

        But do most people know about these differences? Hell, I'll admit that even I have no idea what you're talking about. All I know is that mutations in cells's DNA can cause them to replicate uncontrollably, hence cancer. There are differences in lung/blod/colon/skin cancer? Sounds plausible! ... but I have no idea what they are. To me, and to most normal people, "cancer" encompasses all cancers.

        A common misconception. Cancer is a catch-all term for more than 100 diseases that display similar characteristics - the ability to mask itself from the host immune system, angiogenesis and some cell replication tricks that normal cells can't pull off.

        The spousal unit has been undergoing treatment for Stage IV breast cancer for almost eight years - it had already metastasized to her lungs by the time she was diagnosed. Breast cancer in your lungs is still breast cancer and at least as far as medical

      • Ok kids, here's a Public Service Announcement:

        Do NOT follow the federal guidelines for getting tested for colon cancer. They recommend you start at 50. Well, I'm 47 and apparently I've had it for a couple of years, and in a couple of weeks I'll be having my colon removed and little bag stuck to my side for the rest of my life.

        The good news I'll still have a life.

        And counter-intuitive as it may seem, consider getting a female doctor. Smaller fingers. :-)

    • It's like saying: a drug against virus has been found. Hell! WHAT virus? They are all different!

      Yes, but a drug that targets viruses specifically, when it will be found, will be revolutionary. There is currently no "antibiotic" against viruses.
      Although cancer is another subject, still - these cells should have perform apoptosis [wikipedia.org] and they didn't. Can there be a way to trigger this process in cancer cells?

      • There is currently no "antibiotic" against viruses.

        Actually, there are a few antivirals [wikipedia.org] and, as with bacteria and antibiotics, different viruses are immune to different antivirals.

        Antibiotics are a lot easier to develop than antivirals, however. A bacterium is basically a cell, and 'all' you need to do is find a poison that will kill it but not hurt the host too much. An antiviral, in contrast, has to attack individual proteins, ideally those that are not found in the host at all and are found in all known strains of the virus. If there were a protein

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pedrito ( 94783 )
      Yes and no. Roughly half of all cancers are related to a defect in a protein called p53. There are various p53 defects that can cause cancer and very different cancers can result depending on which cells have which defects. But, for example, if a way were found to introduce wild-type (non-mutated) p53 DNA into these cells via gene therapy, then you'd have a single cure for roughly half of all cancers.

      There are similarities in many cancers in how they operate and often, a single drug can be effective against
    • Yes, all of them are chaotic grow of the cells, but their nature, symptoms, erradication and even cell behaviour is completly different.

      Don't they all start with a genetic error, and failure of the DNA repair mechanisms to catch that error? I understood that most broad anti-cancer agents (e.g. whatever it is in tumeric that helps) bolster the DNA repair mechanism.
    • ...or perhaps they haven't found the thing that unifies them into one disease. Scientific American has an article this month entitled Chromosonal Chaos and Cancer [sciam.com] by the controversial Peter Duesberg (he is reported to claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV).

      To make a fascinating story short, he claims that cancer is a result of chromosomal damage and reshuffling, not gene mutations. He provides very compelling chromosome diagrams showing the pieces of chromosomes scattered all over. (Chromosome 2 has pieces

  • And you though RMS was just a smelly hippie (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @04:51AM (#18882109)
    When it turns out he is a shower dodger to avoid cancer.

  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tawg ( 1078217 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @05:01AM (#18882137)
    Now this is what i call a cancer Treetment.
  • And just when yew'd thought yew'd heard it all.

  • It's Soil (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can still hear the words of my college biology instructor from 30 years ago: "It's not dirt, it's soil."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tawg ( 1078217 )
      I think that it's actually dirt in this instance, if it wasn't how would it be linked to the pee-yew?
  • Its right in front of us and underneath us!

  • Pacific Yew (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tawg ( 1078217 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @05:21AM (#18882245)
    It's quite interesting to note that one of the species of yew mentioned (i assume the most useful at yielding the drug) has been classified as NT (Near threatened) [wikipedia.org].
    This basically means the species is "considered threatened with extinction in the near future". With such a large area of yew trees producing such a small amount of drug, careful measures are going to have to be taken so as not to kill off our new hope for a cancer cure. It's also quite interesting to note that the yew only grows to about 15metres, and so much smaller than what i would know as a (european) yew tree.
  • Drug companies do this all the time [wikipedia.org]. It's a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than rational drug design [wikipedia.org].

  • So much for our parents telling us not to eat dirt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @05:52AM (#18882385)
    So much for our parents telling us not to eat dirt as kids.
  • Pharm. companies are going to be able to process this at the lowest levels (literally), while still being able to charge us $75/pill for the "cure"? Anyone else see the twisted irony of being dirt broke (slaps knee) after you have to pay for 2 years worth of cancer(read soil) treatments?
    • Does that mean you will now be soiling yourself to get well? Coz I grew out of those a few years back...
    • Chance are it won't be as cheap[ to mprocess as you think. Transporting dirt on a medical "clean" way will be expensive along with extracting the drug and such. It will be more likely that it would be synthesized if possible and this will give new sources of reference to play with.

      Even of the drug isn't able to be synthesized, planting something that could extract the drug and then processing that might be a better solution. There are certain plants that absorb chemicals/minerals/vitamins and a lot of other

  • Cancer Fighting Drug Found in Dirt (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:00AM (#18882425) Homepage
    *tch*

    The things people throw away these days...
  • Damn! This means the phrase "eat dirt and die" will be so outdated, unless said to a tumor.

  • It isn't a new medicine just a new way to get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by MSRedfox ( 1043112 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:12AM (#18882475)
    The headline makes it sound like a new wonder drug was found. According to the article, this drug was found in 1967. So it's been around for quite a while. They've just found that the soil around the trees end up with the drug in it to. Thus when they harvest the drug, they can harvest the soil to get more of it at one time. Nothing new cure wise, just a better way for drug companies to produce a product.

  • It's a good drug (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I was one of the guinea-pigs that tested it. It worked incredibly well, better than the alternative at the time which hadn't worked for me leaving me with a choice of taking part in the experiment or trying a large dose of the other medicine with little chance of success.

    I'd heard at the time that it was becoming viable because they'd found a way of synthesising it using chemicals extracted from the needles of the tree, so reducing the impact on the tree. If they can get hold of it with less impact on the t

  • Hopefully (Score:3, Funny)

    by chanrobi ( 944359 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @06:51AM (#18882711)
    It'll be dirt cheap for those who need it
  • I guess that thing I said as a kid to go ahead and eat my dirty food was true (after dropping on ground):

    "god made dirt, dirt don't hurt...."

  • It's not the tree - it's the microbes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by csoto ( 220540 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @07:15AM (#18882871)
    Most people forget that all higher organisms depend heavily on micribiota for their survival. For example, most of the complex micronutrients (e.g. B-comlplex vitamins) in plants are generated in soil bacteria. For these drugs, look to the rhizobacteria as the source of the genes for these compounds. The commensal relationships these bacteria sustain with particular plant species could be important, but it's possible these things could be grown in vitro and yield a nice industrial solution.
  • So it seems those new age, tree-hugging hippies weren't "barking" mad after all. They "yew" what they were doing all along. And I guess that, as far as pharmaceutical companies are concerned, money does grow on trees after all. Hey, that's "tree" of a kind so far. I'd better stop now and see if I can afford a mortgage on a tree house.

  • Well, there's a new one... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @08:01AM (#18883241) Homepage Journal
    Let the strip-mining operations to cure cancer begin!
  • Yews control the medecine market.
  • it's well-known that black walnut trees make sure they have less competition for water and nutrients by leaching poison out their roots.

    so why didn't anybody think to check the ground around yew trees earlier for taxol?

    moral: everybody fouls their nest. expect it. what, you never heard of an alpha geek who got fired for being the alpha?
  • Did anyone else think of this movie [imdb.com] too? You know, the scene where she buries her boyfriend in the medicinal dirt to save his life?
  • See some history [wikipedia.org]: 1958, the NCI sends the USDA to test 30,000 plant species for potential anti-cancer activity. 1963, Monroe Wall discovers that the bark of the Pacific yew tree is effective against cancer. 1967, the active ingredient is isolated. 1971, the chemical structure is discovered and published. 1993, Bristol-Myers Squibb starts selling Taxol, at twenty times the cost of manufacturing. The patent still belongs to them today. See more about how this works. [nader.org]

    So, in short: citizens pay for research whic
  • The american chestnut tree once covered 25% of america. (see wikikpedia [wikipedia.org] for a good background, its a story I am fascinated about). There are numerous attempts to overcome the blight that kills them. What does work now, but cannot be supported for large forests is: dirt [ctacf.org]. For some reason I feel like planting a garden this year.

  • I can see it now . . .

    Due to harvesting we are now facing a crisis in our Earth's most valuable natural asset, Dirt. We must do something now, or soon we will be floating in space without a Planet!

  • I nominate the headline on the parent for second best /. headline ever, right behind "Germs' drummer arrested for carrying soap". Especially when they're taken together.
  • You guessed it--it's YEW.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close